Ugandan homophobia

Anti-imperialism as a hand-washing strategy

MY COLLEAGUE Lexington notes that people have been arguing over the role of Western evangelicals in promoting homophobia in Africa, notably in Uganda's proposed law that prescribes the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality". Lexington cites Philip Jenkins, the expert on global Christianity, as arguing that the claim that African homophobia is imported from Western evangelicals is "bunk".

Gay-bashing in Uganda was common long before any American preachers showed up and gave unpleasant speeches. Rivalry between Islam and Christianity for adherents ensures that preachers of both faiths compete to offer the most anti-gay vision, because that is what a lot of Ugandans want. As in many parts of Africa, openly gay people risk being lynched. The idea that Africans are passive puppets waiting to be told what to do by Americans is both wrong and insulting, says Mr Jenkins.

Lexington attended a talk Mr Jenkins gave in Miami on Tuesday, and spoke with him before and afterwards. It sounds as though Mr Jenkins's focus has evolved a bit over the past few years; when he wrote this article in the New Republic, he wasn't exactly saying that Western evangelicals were irrelevant to Ugandan homophobia. It was more that such influence had been over-emphasised. He situated African homophobia in the rising tide of evangelical Christianity in Africa, and noted that first- and second-generation converts to any faith tend to be more literal in their interpretations of its holy texts. He did argue that competition between Christianity and Islam helps drive homophobia, but he did so in a way that highlights how values are shaped dynamically by the discourse generated in religious competition, including missionary discourse. He also placed African antipathy to homosexuality in historical context, recalling a fascinating angle to the history of Uganda's 19th-century Catholic martyrs. (Apparently some of them were Christian pages who refused to take part in the pederasty adopted by the Arab-influenced Muslim king of Buganda.) "For many Africans," Mr Jenkins wrote, "sexual unorthodoxy has implications that are at once un-Christian, anti-national, and oppressive."

Mr Jenkins is certainly right about that. In the first meeting on HIV policy in Africa I ever sat in on, at the UNAIDS office in Togo in 2000, a local-country counterpart opined that there was no need to discuss outreach to men who have sex with men, because Africans don't do that; only the local Europeans had imported such perversions. (A behaviour-change communications specialist from Ivory Coast then rattled off a series of anecdotes about gay communities in Africa, which put the meeting back on course.) But obviously these attitudes are not immutable, uniform or original; different African societies and cultures have had a wide range of sexual attitudes and practices, and in many cases homophobia has developed as part of the homogenising discourses of modernisation, including Christianity, Islam, nationalism and pan-Africanism. Mr Jenkins thinks African attitudes towards homosexuality will evolve, but in the meantime,

gays in Africa face very real barriers to acceptance. And we do them no favors by viewing Africa's culture war over homosexuality as a mere extension of the battle we are witnessing here in the United States, rather than as a fight which raises questions unique to African history and politics.

This is different from arguing that American evangelicals have not played a role in promoting homophobia in Uganda. The report Lexington cites by Kapya Kaoma, a Zambian Anglican priest, provides a detailed history of efforts by American evangelical churches to promote anti-homosexual doctrines in Africa. Such evangelical churches have backed up their missions with direct salary support to African clergy, and have rewritten the texts of speeches by African clergy to emphasise their own priorities. To say that this has no effect would be akin to claiming that missionaries have no effect, which, given the explosive rise of African Christianity, is obviously not true. Of course American Christianity influences African Christianity; for that matter, the influence runs in the other direction too. (There's a great deal of African religious culture imbricated in the Southern evangelical tradition, which is one reason American evangelical preachers feel so comfortable working in Africa.) The rise of African and American evangelical Christianity is a global, cross-cultural, trans-national system. While it would be a mistake to ignore local factors, it's also a mistake to ignore international ones—such as the way that the drive for converts in the global South alters American religious culture by empowering those churches, often the more miracle-oriented ones, that do a better job of appealing abroad.

It's one thing to recognise that Africans are responsible for what happens in African societies. But it would be silly to claim that therefore, no one besides Africans bears any responsibility for anything that happens in African societies. That's using a faulty anti-imperialism argument to wash your hands of all responsibility. There's nothing infantilising about the observation that Africans are influenced by American evangelical missionary efforts to influence them, and people who object to American missionary campaigns promoting African discrimination against gays are quite right to feel a moral duty to oppose them.

I think what's happening is the author, and those that view things as the author views thing, takes the worst part of religion or the worst examples, and then act like that is what religion is all about. I think the author has a very messed up view of what religion is, as though its some sort of weird thing at war with facts, that's just out there to cause trouble, and that would be better if it didn't exist (based on, again I think mistaken, belief that it's possible for there to be a world without religion... since that world itself would be following the "non-religion" religion, which is a religion where I guess the only contraints is what you can get away with).

1) I don't think that a traditional catechism can be fairly categorized as "anti-homosexual doctrine".

2) As you note the African Church is coming to the US and doing quite well. One of the reasons has to be the traditional catechetical practices, which were dumped by many old-line denominations in the US.

Maybe it is just delivering a moderate degree of continuation and consistency in teaching that appeals world-wide, rather than some plot to get one group or another.

I'm sorry to speak ill of your compatriot, but Lexington's response to the Kaoma report was fundamentally unserious: careful evidence and reportage was dismissed on the ground of a private conversation. And his understanding of responsibility seems to have been derived directly from Republican rhetoric. A poor show, all told.

"how come these missionaries were apparently able to get africans to reject homosexuality, but were unable to get Africans to reject polygamy?"

Perhaps no one has ever answered that question because you've never asked it out loud. It's quite easy to get people to reject what only a few people do. It's quite another thing to get them to reject something MOST people do.

@Chimaoge1:
"As a Western-educated African, I can tell you without exemptions, that homosexuality is not part of our culture (unlike polygamy), hence the intense resistance to it"

I think what you mean is that *acceptance* of homosexuality is not part of your culture (although I would question the scope of your claim: are you really speaking on behalf of an entire continent, for the entirety of recorded history?!). Sucks for the 5-10% of the population who will insist on being born gay, really; but then I suppose you could say it's their own fault for not being strong enough to repress the most powerful human impulse, and that they deserve everything that happens to them, up to and including rape and murder (!).

It reminds me of Chairman Mao's priceless quote that there were no gay people in China. How did he know? Did he read the minds of every single Chinese person to ensure there were no gay thoughts lurking in their minds? Or did he merely create an atmosphere so poisonous and dangerous to gay people that they lived in constant fear of discovery, with the attendant psychic woes such a way of life would cause?

I don't know Sir Wellington. I hope you're right about what you say, about it being pretty clear. But I think, at least based on my own experience, there appears to be a desire by some (many?) to delegitimize the religion in its entirety, because of the constraints it puts on individuals that they would rather not have to deal with, since they don't believe in the underlying premises of the religion, and instead believe in something else (usually they don't really say what they believe, but assert the conclusion that they can define their own realities, so long as they don't harm others). I really think the younger generation in particular tends to feel this way. I don't know whether the animosity towards religion is because they are just confused about what it really is or whether its because they're not confused but won't let little things like "unfairness" or "logic" hold them back. Its impossible to know what goes on in other people's heads. But anyway, I like to think you're right, but just in my own day-to-day experiences in terms of university and post-graduate stuff, and then job life, there is a very harsh animosity towards religion in general, and in particular if it gets in the way of something people want.

Religious people who are uninteresting:
People who are not sure God exists, but who take their kids to church because it promotes discipline.
People who go to church mainly for the social interaction.
People who go to church mainly because they think their family would be disappointed if they didn't go.
People who are not sure God exists, but are afraid Hell exists.

This is probably one of the few times I would address this particular issue, otherwise I am usually not interested in this matter, which as far as I am concerned, is a Western obssession.

A lot of Westerners are in the habit of patronizing Africans, refusing to acknowledge that we are able to make up our own minds and that we have traditions and culture which we cherish and wish to protect from western debauchery. A typical westerner claims that "Africans were pro-gay until the evil european missionaries appeared on the scene with their homophobia". But these westerners cannot explain how come these missionaries were apparently able to get africans to reject homosexuality, but were unable to get Africans to reject polygamy?. (Yes, even in predominantly christian African nations, polygamy is widely pratised even by baptised people to the dismay of church clergy)

As a Western-educated African, I can tell you without exemptions, that homosexuality is not part of our culture (unlike polygamy), hence the intense resistance to it. This resistance cuts across socio-economic class,level of education, religion (or even lack of religion), so all this talk about "poor Africans who are too illiterate to come into Century 21" does not wash at all. All these patronising talk about some white fundamentalist christians coming to incite the apparently unthinking african masses is complete rubbish, but I can understand that such foolish talk is convenient fodder for western propaganda. It is a well known fact that many Westerners see Christianity or any religion for that matter as superstition so associating African antipathy to Gayism with christianity is a smart way of trying to portray that Africans as irrational beings.

Those westerners who are pushing the Gay Agenda in Africa by encouraging few misguided Africans to provoke people in Kenya, Uganda and Malawi should understand that as far as this issue is concerned, we will not bow down. We may be poor, but when it comes to family life, we are rich. We have no wish to end up with high divorce rates and Western-style family fragmentation. We insist on maintaining the solidarity based communal structure of our society, we have no wish to be like the highly individualistic "Mind-Your-Own-Business" society which is common in the West. In other words, the western cliche--"What I do privately my bedroom in none of your business"--- is meaningless to us since our society is organised around communities of families rather than individuals.

You guys can carry on deceiving yourselves that christianity is to blame, though I am yet to hear you lot say that this religion is responsible for the anti-gay attitudes of China and Singapore.

"Apparently some of them were Christian pages who refused to take part in the pederasty adopted by the Arab-influenced Muslim king of Buganda"

Sounds to me more like nonsense propaganda. Not far from 19th century American slave-holders (and their descendants) promoting the idea that Haitians made a deal with the devil in order to win their freedom, or the trusty old blood libel against Jews.

It becomes pretty obvious if you reword it as "Apparently some of them were Christian pages who refused to take part in the child sacrifice adopted by the Jewish king of Buganda." You'd never take that at face value.

Western missionaries really shouldn't be involved in political issues at all. They are encroaching are other peoples culture and self-rule. But if there is good reason, such as to help truly oppressed people in war time or against a tyrannical government, I can see them having a role promoting social justice. Spreading hysteria over gays and witches instead of working to prevent the violence against these groups shows they aren't filling their proper role, but are rather part of the problem. It is right to condemn people who oppress and promote murder in the name of religion.

Except to a handful of hateful atheist, it's pretty clear that the most Christians that go to Africa are humble people that go there to help their fellow men, just like they would help out at a soup kitchen or coach a little league team. Those Christians are hardly political figures though, so they don't make it into large publications.

@Chimaoge1: Rochefoucault has it right. You're speaking only of African acceptance, today, of homosexuality. The history of the subject is, however, much more interesting than you pretend.

In the 19th century (and before the term "homosexuality" was coined), homosexuality was not known simply as the "vice of the Greeks" but much more commonly as the "vice of the Egyptians" (hardly a Western people). Even today, homosexuality, per se, is not outlawed in Egypt (merely, "debauchery").

Moreover, anthropology has documented many societies and ethnic groups throughout recent and ancient African history which tolerate complete equality of persons of whatever sexual orientation: The Dogon of Mali come to mind. The area around Kano, Nigeria, had a flourishing gay subculture for centuries before the Brits arrived at the end of the 19th century. We have heard elsewhere in this thread of the ancient Baganda kingdom. Homosexuality under Ottoman, Persian, Roman, and ancient Egyptian rule in Africa was every day.

Modern science shows that being gay/bisexual is closely related to birth order in men: The more older brothers one has from one's own mother, the more likely that one will turn out gay/bi. This holds true whether or not the boy grows up with his brothers or even in his birth family. Since only 2% of first born sons are gay, but more than 7% of men overall are gay, the likelihood of being gay if born as a second, third or fourth-born son must rise exponentially.

Moreover, the occurrence of homosexual conduct and homosocial bonding (mating) has been documented in over 1,500 species, including all mankind's closest evolutionary relatives (chimps, great apes, baboons, monkeys and the like). There's a museum in Norway on this subject.

Homophobia in modern times is the direct result of the contest between the Crusaders led by St. Thomas Acquinas after 1260 AD and the Muslim world, which responded to Acquinas's criticisms by adopting homophobic attitudes, themselves. The Koran does not speak about gay sex, but only about the evils of "lot" (which referred in ancient times to inhospitality, not homosexuality). The Bible also doesn't mention homosexuality, except to criticize promiscuity. Modern translations of these works which say otherwise have been corrupted by the fight which began with St. Thomas Acquinas.

African intolerance of homosexuality, today, is directly influenced by its history of colonialism, especially in the former British colonies. Attitudes in the former French and Portuguese colonies, while still not exactly "friendly" towards LGBT persons, are overall better than in the British ones. This relates directly to the rabid homophobia of Victorian times.

Time for Africa to come into the 21st century and give up all of its sins, including those inherited from its colonial masters, and yet others as well. Being gay/bi/tran is no sin, whatsoever, but just as "natural", "normal" and "healthy" as having brown eyes or dark skin. Were this not so, there would be no association with birth order, nor any finding of homosexuality among other species. Open your eyes, Sir.